Final destination Iran?

[mogrovejo]

Just bitter about going to war unecessarily.

Nobody knew that it was unnecessary when the decision had to be made. Not even the UN inspectors.

Anyway, I hope you don't criticize those who made the decision of waging an unnecessary war.

[coyotes_geek]

Was I the one inserting the topic in the broader context of the US foreign policy? Why are you making this question to me?

I don't think Iraq was a success; I think the surge was.

I still don't follow what any of that has to do with Iran.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nobody knew that it was unnecessary when the decision had to be made. Not even the UN inspectors.

Anyway, I hope you don't criticize those who made the decision of waging an unnecessary war.

One question. If the evidence was so conclusive, why use information that was easily refuted?


The decision was made by the President to go to war...

[mogrovejo]

I still don't follow what any of that has to do with Iran.

You can't follow what Iran - and the article linked in the OP - has to do with the US foreign policy?

[mogrovejo]

One question. If the evidence was so conclusive, why use information that was easily refuted?


The decision was made by the President to go to war...

I don't understand the first question. I never said the evidence was "so conclusive". In fact, I stated the opposite. Thanks for making my point.

Yeah, I knwo the decision was made by the President. I'm sure you don't criticize him for that, because it's not like he was the first politician to decide to enter an unnecessary war.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't understand the first question. I never said the evidence was "so conclusive". In fact, I stated the opposite. Thanks for making my point.

Yeah, I knwo the decision was made by the President. I'm sure you don't criticize him for that, because it's not like he was the first politician to decide to enter an unnecessary war.

So then the decision should never have been made to go to war. Thanks for clarifying my point.

In my lifetime he is the first president.. I guess I could put him in the same category as LBJ..

[mogrovejo]

So then the decision should never have been made to go to war. Thanks for clarifying my point.

That was my point too, so I'm not really sure what was the purpose of your intervention, but as long as you don't criticize those who made the decision, that's okay.

Nice to know you're happy with the surge success and the decision to go for it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That was my point too, so I'm not really sure what was the purpose of your intervention, but as long as you don't criticize those who made the decision, that's okay.

Nice to know you're happy with the surge success and the decision to go for it.

I'm happy that we are closer to getting out..yes I am.

[boutons_deux]

neo-c*nts manufacturing yet another paranoid threat to keep the MIC war scam going.

[Stringer_Bell]

omg this is gonna awesome. see, we're pretending to have trouble with israel and loosen our relationship up a bit, then iran feels a bit better and BAM! we them up when they least expect.

[Nbadan]

Our relationship trouble with Israel is real, but it isn't going to change the power struggle going on in the region between Israel and Iran + Pakistan...Marcus is adding 1 and 1 and getting 3, if we are shipping bombs to Diego Garza they could be headed anywhere in the Middle East -yes, even Israel...

...we're not going to bomb Iran for many reasons, but mainly because of the Russians and Chinese....

[boutons_deux]

"success of the surge"

the Repug surge spin was completely obliterated and longly discussed here. The surge didn't do compared to the falloff in violence before the surge.

In fact, the surgistos going around kicking in doors and pissing off Iraqis got a lot of Americans killed. When they stopped bullying Iraqis, the surgistos saved their own lives.
The US military created its own wave of surge violence.

[Wild Cobra]

the Repug surge spin was completely obliterated and longly discussed here. The surge didn't do compared to the falloff in violence before the surge.

In fact, the surgistos going around kicking in doors and pissing off Iraqis got a lot of Americans killed. When they stopped bullying Iraqis, the surgistos saved their own lives.
The US military created its own wave of surge violence.

[boutons_deux]

WC still tryng to pin the Iraq war-for-oil on the Dems. and GFY

[Wild Cobra]

WC still tryng to pin the Iraq war-for-oil on the Dems. and GFY

No, just showing how foolish you are to pin it on the republicans.

[spursncowboys]

So....if we're bombing Iran, that means Bush, Cheney, and Palin were right? And if Obama is doing what's right, then the conservatives will vote for him? We can't change horses in mid-stream!!!

but obama has the answer on how to get iran to stop them so why are we even discussing this? he said he had a plan so there it is.

[Stringer_Bell]

All this shows us is that the "weapons of mass destruction" myth was around before Bush. The same people running the show behind the scenes during the Clinton administration were running it during the Bush administration. Neither side is innocent and we've been played by people that aren't voted into office, people we never see. THAT IS A GREAT TRICK!

But I think it shows we're not going into Iran, I don't recall as much evidence of psychological prepping. It's probably just a few calculated money shots aimed at showing them we mean business, if anything at all other than posturing.

[Nbadan]

All this shows us is that the "weapons of mass destruction" myth was around before Bush.

It was no myth, Iraq had chemical weapons, we gave it to them..where Bush and the Neocons failed was buying their own bull about an Iraqi immenent threat, that never existed, the Al queda - Saddam ties, that never happened and weren't true, and that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators, which we aren't...

[Wild Cobra]

All this shows us is that the "weapons of mass destruction" myth was around before Bush. The same people running the show behind the scenes during the Clinton administration were running it during the Bush administration.

Yep. Thing is, there are some liberals here who seem to think it was just the Bush administration.

Neither side is innocent and we've been played by people that aren't voted into office, people we never see. THAT IS A GREAT TRICK!

I wouldn't say we were played over the situation, but at least you acknowledge both sides were involved.

But I think it shows we're not going into Iran, I don't recall as much evidence of psychological prepping. It's probably just a few calculated money shots aimed at showing them we mean business, if anything at all other than posturing.

I don't recall anything ever suggesting we were going to Iran myself. We have Israel to take care of them.

[boutons_deux]

For WC, there's no difference in blame between

a. believing a group-think myth (that was certainly created and hyped by neo-c*nts who wanted that oil going back to the '90s and PNAC) and

b. hyping the myth, suppressing anti-myth evidence, surrounding the myth with lies (Powell's mobile weapons lab, aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, Saddam-WTC, Saddam-AQ, etc) that supported myth, and pushing hard (calling any anti-war Congressman traitors and soft on terrroism) to start a war-for-oil.

But go ahead, WC, we all understand your and the Repug's usual self-incriminating defense of "the Dems are just as ty assholes as we Repugs", the need to cover up your crimes with lies.

"I don't recall anything ever suggesting we were going to Iran myself"

Of course your selective, ideologically blinded memory wouldn't remember.

But in the press, it was widely reported that the armchair neo-c*nts oil warriors of PNAC were known to have said "Iraq's oil is first, but Real Mean want Iran" (US and UK were the main oil predators/corruptors kicked out of Iran by the Khomeini revolution.)